Category Archives: Civil Rights

“But if my being seen in the parade is a visible sign that God loves and accepts people across the full spectrum of human sexuality, it will have achieved its purpose.”
– The Very Rev. Gary Hall, Washington National Cathedral

But he didn’t stop there.

“I’m sure I’ll get some angry letters for participating in something this flamboyant. But you know, I think the flamboyance might actually loosen up some uptight people.”

(Washington, DC) – Today, Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) Interim Executive Director, Gregory T. Angelo, released a statement criticizing House Republicans for their decision to incorporate ongoing counsel to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) into the new Congressional Rules.

The following is a response from the LCR Interim Executive Director, Gregory T. Angelo:

At a time when sound fiscal policy should be front-and-center, diverting taxpayer funds to defend the Federal Defense of Marriage Act should not be a priority, period. But the beltway buzz about Congressional Rules ignores the big picture: this debate would be nonexistent if DOMA was repealed. Following a week in which Republican Congressmen Richard Hanna and Charlie Bass joined Republican Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in support of the Respect for Marriage Act and DOMA repeal, we urge the Republican Congress to focus on our core tenets of small government and avoid engaging in distracting social issues that do nothing more than provide political fodder to the left.

This newspaper applauds the Supreme Court’s recent decision to hear arguments in two same-sex marriage cases — one on California’s Proposition 8, which bans such marriages, and one regarding the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

Same-sex marriage has been percolating at the state level for several years, leading to a patchwork of laws that create more confusion than clarity. The court can undo that confusion by determining the constitutional parameters of this issue.

We urge the Supreme Court to affirm the right of gay couples to marry based upon the fundamental American ideal of equality before the law. It is critical that the court also make clear that such a ruling won’t require churches whose doctrines oppose same-sex marriage to perform such ceremonies.

Debating the reversal of centuries of views about the institution of marriage cannot be considered without upheaval, and we recognize that the notion of gays and lesbians marrying can divide families, friends and, especially, generations. But the growing support for same-sex marriage, including within families whose gay members have changed the way these unions are seen, makes the embrace of gay marriage less of a radical shift.

Polls show that American attitudes have shifted dramatically on the subject. Surveys by organizations such as Gallup reveal that half or more of Americans support the concept of gay marriage. Equality in marriage laws is particularly embraced by younger Americans, including some younger evangelicals.

Even leading conservatives favor gay marriage. Former Vice President Dick Cheney is among the most notable. So, too, is former Bush solicitor general Ted Olson, who will lead the team arguing in favor of the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.

Olson contends that the federal government lacks the right to deny gay couples the opportunity to marry. He also will argue that the ban denies gay couples the right to due process. As the Republican wrote in Newsweek, “This bedrock principle of equality is central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals and conservatives alike.”

We respect that some religious traditions see same-sex unions as an affront to their canons, scriptures and traditions. The First Amendment protects such places of worship from being compelled to conduct same-sex marriages. Additionally, the justices should take care to carve out strong and significant protections so that the institutions’ religious liberties, for instance their tax-exempt status, are not circumscribed.

In 2004, this newspaper opposed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. We have backed efforts to outlaw discrimination against employees based on sexual orientation. Now, we believe that the Supreme Court should conclude that equality under the law includes the right of gay couples to wed.

What’s at stake before the Supreme Court is how a secular society should respond to the growing demand for same-sex marriage. That is where Olson’s arguments seem so persuasive. How can a secular government grant marriage rights to some but not others?

“I think the way liberals have treated blacks like children and many of their policies have been harmful to blacks, at least they got the beneficiary group right. There is the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow laws. We don’t owe the homeless. We don’t owe feminists. We don’t owe women who are desirous of having abortions, or gays who want to get married to one another. That’s what civil rights has become for much of the left…

“I think civil rights are for blacks. What have we done to the immigrants? We owe black people something. We have a legacy of slavery. Immigrants haven’t even been in this country.”

Like this:

The following quote is taken from an interview with WPTV with Congressman Paul Ryan, the GOP Vice-Presidential candidate.

“Now that it’s done, we should not reverse it. I think that would be a step in the wrong direction because people have already disclosed themselves. I talked to a lot of good friends of mine who are combat leaders in the theater and they just didn’t think the timing of this was right to do this when our troops were in the middle of harm’s way in combat. I think this issue is past us. It’s done. And, I think we need to move on.”

Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo has spoken out in favor of a Maryland ballot initiative that would legalize gay marriage. Yahoo has published a letter that Maryland state delegate Emmett C. Burns Jr. wrote last week to Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti, urging him to “inhibit such expressions from your employee.” This is Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe’s (@ChrisWarcraft) response to Burns.

Dear Emmett C. Burns Jr.,

I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of Maryland’s state government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words):

1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should “inhibit such expressions from your employees,” more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a narcissistic fromunda stain. What on earth would possess you to be so mind-boggingly stupid? It baffles me that a man such as yourself, a man who relies on that same First Amendment to pursue your own religious studies without fear of persecution from the state, could somehow justify stifling another person’s right to speech. To call that hypocritical would be to do a disservice to the word. Mindfucking obscenely hypocritical starts to approach it a little bit.

2. “Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement.” Holy fucking shitballs. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who’s “deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland”? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you’re going to say that political views have “no place in a sport”? I can’t even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a 10 for “beautiful oppressionism”).

3. This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you? How does gay marriage, in any way shape or form, affect your life? If gay marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you’ll start thinking about penis? “Oh shit. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that hot dong action!” Will all of your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (Unlikely, since gay people enjoy watching football too.)

I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won’t come into your house and steal your children. They won’t magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster. They won’t even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population—rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?

In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter, in some small way, causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot in mouth clusterfuck you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I’m fairly certain you might need it.

Sincerely,
Chris Kluwe

P.S. I’ve also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage so you can take your “I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing” and shove it in your close-minded, totally lacking in empathy piehole and choke on it. Asshole.

On the eve of the first anniversary of the end of DADT, the United States Army promotes its first gay general. Phil Reese of The Washington Blade has the story.

WASHINGTON — At a ceremony last week at the Women’s Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery promoting her to Brigadier General status, Tracey Hepner pinned the star to the uniform of Tammy S. Smith — her wife — making her the first openly gay member of the U.S. Army promoted to that rank.

Smith and Hepner were married in the District of Columbia in March 2012, according to the New York Times, and prior to Smith’s promotion, Hepner co-founded the Military Partners and Families Coalition, which provides support services for the families of gay and lesbian military personnel.

“[P]articipating with family in traditional ceremonies such as the promotion is both common and expected of a leader,” Smith told the Times in a statement.

“For years, gay and lesbian generals and admirals were forced to hide their families in order to protect their careers,” said Sue Fulton, a member of the OutServe board of directors, in a statement. “It is a great day for our military and for our nation when this courageous leader is finally able to recognize her wife for her support and sacrifice in the same way that all military families should be recognized for their service to our country.”

As a colonel, Gen. Smith served as the chief of Army Reserve Affairs in Afghanistan from December 2010 to October 2011. She is currently the deputy chief of the Army Reserves.

Log Cabin Republicans and Rep. Eric Cantor Agree: GOP Must Be “a Party of Inclusion”

(Washington, DC) – As the Republican National Convention approaches, Log Cabin Republicans agree strongly with Congressman Eric Cantor (R-VA) that the GOP “need[s] to be a party of inclusion, not exclusion.” In an interview with Buzzfeed, the congressman urged tolerance and acceptance of a diversity of opinion on issues including the freedom to marry.

“The Log Cabin Republicans motto is ‘inclusion wins,’ and it is encouraging to see conservative leaders like Majority Leader Cantor promoting that message as key to victory in 2012,” said R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director. “From the Republican Party’s staunch support for candidates like Log Cabin member Richard Tisei to the leadership of conservative champions like Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), there is increasing support for LGBT equality within the GOP. The march to victory in 2012 and beyond will require a big tent, respecting diversity of opinion while uniting around the core issues that unite us as Republicans. We are grateful to Majority Leader Cantor for leading the way.”

Staff Reporter – Yeas & Nays

Chick-fil-A’s popularity in the District is booming thanks to their new food truck, but the company has presented an ethical conundrum to locals who love chicken and think same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. The company’s president, Dan Cathy, revealed just how strongly opposed to gay marriage he is. (“I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about,” Cathy said in an interview this week.)

Robert Turner, president of D.C. Log Cabin Republicans, provided his thoughts on the matter to Yeas & Nays. He sees no issue with enjoying a spicy chicken sandwich and also supporting the right of two men or women to walk down the aisle together.

“No problem at all,” he said. “At the end of the day, if one looks deeply at the companies one patronizes — eating at Chick-fil-A, shopping on Amazon, ordering a Coke with your meal — you’ll find a multitude of issues where you and that company disagree.”

As for the crest of tweets urging folks to boycott the chain, Turner said, “People need to make up their own minds and not succumb to peer pressure.”

Turner added that private companies are entitled to their religious beliefs, though “if people believe that marriage is a religious institution, then let’s get the government completely out of marriage. No more marriage licenses, no more justice of the peace weddings, no more tax breaks.” The Log Cabin Republicans officially oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment, which seeks to define marriage between a man and a woman.

As for Cathy’s recent remarks, Turner wasn’t surprised. “I’m not sure why this should come as a shock to anyone,” he said. “Their religious beliefs have been well-known for years. Have you ever seen a Chick-fil-A open on a Sunday?”